The Cable

Obama’s Iraq ambassador: I wanted troops to remain in Iraq

Obama's former ambassador to Iraq, who served during the withdrawal of U.S. forces, was in favor of keeping some troops in the Iraq past the 2011 withdrawal date, he told The Cable in an interview today.

"My feeling was we needed, for political reasons, U.S. troops in country carrying out the training mission [past 2011] ... I thought it was important to have an American presence and a new Status of Forces Agreement," said former ambassador Jim Jeffrey, who retired from government this year after serving as the Obama administration's envoy to Baghdad from 2010 until June. Jeffrey is now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Jeffrey didn't necessarily support  the larger troop footprint envisioned by military leaders at the time, which reportedly ranged from 8,000 to 16,000 to 24,000 troops, depending on the military official. But he said he firmly believed that troops in Iraq past 2011 were needed and wanted by the Iraqi government.

"The troop numbers were not something I opined on. That was a military decision. My argument was we needed a troop presence to do training and that troop presence had to have the capabilities to protect itself and do counterterrorism and some other things," said Jeffrey. "The more troops you keep in Iraq, as far as I was concerned, the better, as long as the Iraqis went along with it."

Jeffrey was a key player on both the Washington and Baghdad sides of the 2011 negotiations that were meant to agree on a follow on force to extend the Bush administration's Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) after it was set to expire last December. Those negotiations ultimately failed. The White House has said the Iraqis refused to grant immunity for U.S. troops in Iraq after 2011 and submit a new SOFA through their own parliament, two things the United States needed to extend the troops' mission.

Jeffrey said that he and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki personally discussed the idea of extending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq via an executive agreement, which would not have to go through the Iraqi parliament.

"Maliki said at one point, ‘Why don't we just do this as an executive agreement?'" Jeffrey said. "I didn't think he was serious, and I didn't think he had thought it through."

But ultimately, the Iraqis did insist that a new SOFA had to go through their parliament and they would not budge on the immunities issue, which made an extension of U.S. forces there impossible, Jeffrey said. He said the insistence on immunity was uniform inside the Obama administration.

"I know of no senior official who challenged that," he said.

Jeffrey pushed back against the growing perception in Washington that Maliki is consolidating power in Baghdad, refusing to share governance with the opposition parties, and turning Iraqi foreign policy away from American interests and toward Iranian interests, for example by supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Jeffrey doesn't see Maliki as either totally supporting Assad or totally cooperating with the United States.

"He's trying to play both sides," said Jeffrey. "For Iraqi Shia, not just Maliki, Syria is a frightening experience. They are afraid that when the jihadists finish in Syria, they will ally with the Sunnis in Iraq and come after the Shia."

"This may be unrealistic and it's not in our interest that they think this way," he said. "We Americans hate it when anyone takes an independent position, but that's the new world order. And people are going to follow their own interests."

In The Endgame, Michael Gordon's new book about the end of the Iraq war, he quotes Jeffrey as saying that Maliki has "dictatorial tendencies" and that the U.S. needed to work to counter those tendencies. Jeffrey confirmed he had said that in the past, but added that he places a lot of the blame for the delay in political reconciliation in Iraq on former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the head of the Iraqqiya party.

"I think every leader I've encountered in Iraq has dictatorial tendencies. Maliki just happens to be the one who is the prime minister," he said. "Until August of 2011, a lot of people in the political process who could be objective, if they had to put their finger on who was screwing up the agreements, they would put a lot of the weight on Iyad Allawi. Allawi never gave up his desire to be prime minister and he felt that he could bring the system down and we would eventually intervene. We didn't."

Jeffrey said he regrets that the Iraq war was initiated in 2003 without a clear plan to get out and said that the idea that the United States would be able craft Iraq into a model of Western-style democracy in the middle of the Middle East was always naïve and misguided.

"In most cases, it takes decades for countries to shape up... So us thinking that in the short run we could fix this in Iraq was totally wrong," he said.

Jeffrey said he saw the situation in Iraq as "a glass half full."

"There is a lot of commitment among Iraqis for diversity, pluralism, and independent organs of government," he said. "The final story has not been written. We'll see."

Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Cable

State Department to review its own Benghazi review

The State Department Inspector General's office has drawn up plans to conduct several reviews of the State Department's handling of embassy security and the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, including a review of the State Department's own internal review.

The State Department's acting Inspector General Harold Geisel wrote an Oct. 26 letter, obtained by The Cable, to Senate Homeland Security Committee heads Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME), outlining several reviews his office has already started and some they are about to start to determine if embassy security around the world is sufficient, being implemented properly, and if that was a factor in the attack that killed Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

One of their tasks will be to keep tabs on the proceedings of the State Department's own review of the Benghazi attack, which is being conducted by an Accountability Review Board (ARB) led by former Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering and including former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

"Inspectors will monitor the implementation of any recommendations from the Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) report and will review them as future inspections are conducted," Geisel wrote.

Lieberman and Collins were among the first to call for a widespread investigation into diplomatic security at American outposts worldwide when they wrote to Geisel on Sept. 14 to request that the inspector general conduct an independent examination of security, with a focus on smaller posts and non-permanent facilities established by the department in post-conflict nations like Libya.

The senators want the inspector general's office to investigate whether there was adequate security at the Benghazi consulate, whether there was an established and clear process for determining security requirements at overseas posts, and whether that process was followed in Benghazi. They also want the IG to investigate the operational security procedures around Stevens and determine who might have known that he would be in the consulate at that time and why he didn't have more protection.

In his response, Geisel said that the IG's office has begun two new audit projects -- one to evaluate how the State Department analyzes, disseminates, and uses threat intelligence to defend vulnerable posts in dangerous places, and one to evaluate the process for choosing and vetting local guards hired by contractors to protect American facilities and personnel abroad.

Last month, the IG began an audit to determine whether diplomatic posts in key countries in Africa are following the security procedures. The IG's review of the ARB report will be conducted by the Office of Inspections, which is also looking at how State's Intelligence and Research Bureau (INR) is handling credible threat information and whether that information is getting to the posts in an efficient manner.

Without mentioning Benghazi specifically, Geisel mentioned that the IG office has been recommending ways to increase security and crisis-response capability at diplomatic posts for some time.

"Recommendations related to responding to attacks and other emergencies included the need to properly equip alternate command centers to use them in crisis management exercises," he wrote. "We recommended conducting weekly emergency and evacuation radio checks and mandated emergency drills. We also emphasized the need for maintaining updated emergency action plans, installing secondary means of egress from safe havens; and providing surveillance detection teams with the ability to remotely activate imminent danger notification systems in response to an actual or potential attack."

Meanwhile, the senators have begun their own investigation and have asked for various documents and briefings from the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Office of the Director for National Intelligence.